That's exactly the argument for GDPR is. If an American megacorp doesn't want to respect the rights of non Americans then it shouldn't be allowed to profit at all from them. You can't just ban some and profit from the rest.
Free speech is the principle that you should let people say whatever they want without censorship or legal consequences (excluding cases where the speech causes direct harm).
> They can do what they want with their platform.
Of course they can, but they can't then say they believe in free speech. Similarly to "you don't make peace with your friends" : you can't say you're free speech if you only allow information you agree with.
What annoys me is when people think that free speech isn't a principle, but just a law in the US which applies to the government only. It's usually: "Hurr duur, it's a private company so it can practice full communism and we should be okay with that."
(That said, personally I have mixed feelings about this because I feel like it might be causing harm... Same with the antivaxxer crap.)
Just because you _can_ survive without eating meat doesn't prove what I was disputing: (“Meat is bad for [...] health”). I can survive without carrots, but it doesn't mean they're bad for my health.
You can have both: provide a sane default for most users and allow people to roll their own.
The reason why Python gets extra criticism for this is because it likes to tell people that there should be one obvious way to do it and that it comes with batteries included yet it's dependency management system is just crap and doesn't follow that at all.
> the image didn't celebrate or honour her as a person. It was an image protraying an unrealistic "beautiful thing". People didn't even know her real name, or what she's achieved as a real person.